Thanks for the pic. Those old models have quite a history with respect to their lookings I was wondering whether or not this pic is slightly distorted: the model looks less wide compared to its height when you comapre it to the pics of Jules. Also the port bvelow the lower 'slingerlijst' look larger. Perhaps the result of lighting conditions. Pics can sometimes be very misleading.... I had a small discussion with Jules some time ago on the lines of the famous zweidecker as shown by Winter: does he show the wrong lines, or did the model for some reason not have the typical characteristics of a Dutch ship. The old pics can shown hardly any evidence....
I think you are right, the picture is indeed a little stretched, the model has a slightly broader stern. As for the lines of HZ, check up Jules´ remarks on Sept. 11th on this thread. I think he´s right in saying, that there is nothing wrong with the model, there´s something wrong with the plans. Bye, Rein
I´ve just found a great download. It´s a little booklet from the Bijlokemuseum about the Restauration of the Gent-model, co-authored by Mr. Birnie, with lots of Information about the model and some old pictures from before the restauration. Here´s a newer example. Birnie also made a protokoll of his work on the model. Enjoy! Rein
I too, had the opportunity to examine the STAM model in Gent. As this model was most likely built around the same time as the Hohenzollernmodel my hope was to clear questions that are still open on the HZM, though it cannot be examined closer as the HZM simply doesn't exist anymore. We were permitted to handle the model and to take photographs and measurements. My main objective was to get inside the model. As large deck-areas can be removed it was easy for us to get in there with mobile-phones and small cameras but not everywhere. This is down inside the hold looking aft:
There is a sense of neglect but also of simplicity. It is said that at one stage the keel was seriously damaged which caused it and the hull bottom to distort. There are only a few knees and riders, where there should be one at nearly each deck-beam. These images were taken down through the main cargo-hatch as I could get in there with my mobile-phone. This next image was taken down the same hatch, looking to port and slightly forward:
And here Looking forward:
Unlike the Hohenzollernmodel there is no galley down here and no sleeping accommodations. We noticed that the STAM model isn't as well built as the HZM.
Now let's move up to the great cabins. One question that I hoped to get answered was what the inside of the stern looked like. The surpsing answer was: it is planked. This is far and away the best picture, and the most important, that was taken on this session. I'm sure Jan (Amateur) won't mind me posting one of his pictures here:
The picture was taken inside the great cabin looking aft. The following Pictures are from the starboard-side quarter gallery. We could only just get in there with our mobile-phones but weren't able to move the cameras around anymore. We could only take this Image looking forward (at the ceiling):
...and this one looking aft (at the toilet)
This is inside the captains cabin looking aft. Note the two gunport and that the inside of the stern is planked:
And the next two views are inside the trumpeteers cabin. No bunks, no furniture just a bare room. It rather gives me the impression that it was for convicts and not musicians. This image is looking aft towards the port side:
And this is the port side looking slightly forward:
This interesting fella here is the cable-hatch lid:
And here from underneath:
The bunks only consist of walls and not the bunks themselves:
We were there for a whole afternoon. Road-traffic on the way there wasn't on our side. It took as five hours to get there. At best it can be done in three. We were exhausted but soon realised: we're going to have to go back. Clearly we got some questions answered, but being there and looking at the photographs afterwards brought up many additional questions. In general we can say that the model isn't as well built and detailed as the HZM. It was most likely built by another workshop. Sadly it has been bashed about with a great deal during the past decades.
Jan, yes, the box can only be found on one side of the hull: the port side. I suppose the hole goes through the ship's side. Here is another thing that can only be found on the port side of the model: the fenders.
Maybe you are willing to share some of your pictures of the model here. That would surely help to fight my Covid-blues.
Martyn, luckily the box has you scratching your head as well. Now I do not feel so stupid anymore. Shared ignorance is always better. Thanks.
for me, after all those years reflecting on the model, the answer is quite simple: the box, the fenders or the two cleats on the side near the bow are later additions or incompetent "repairs" (the box may simply
have been attached somewhere on the inside near a gunport; for the gunbarrels). On a northern dutch ship of this period I´ve never seen such a thing as fenders. The fender is too small at the top, the "halsklamp"
would still be damaged by the boat. After all, we know now, how badly the model was messed with over the years.
But it often turns out that the answers are not always that simple. Simply assuming that everything we can not explain must be an 'incompetent repair', as you call it, is too easy. A great example for this are the fenders.
Witsen mentions fenders in 1671, Van de Velde shows them in his drawings, and ... the Gent-model, a contemporary model, shows them. So for me it is at least likely that fenders were used on Dutch ships in this period, and that the Gent-model possibly is an unique example of how they were made. Especially since the fenders of the model look the same as in the Van de Velde drawings.
(If you want to check: Witsen, 1671, p. 62, I: "On large ships, often beams were attached on the ship's side, which were used as a protection for the wales, while loading boats or other heavy goods. (my translation)" Van de Velde: Zevenwolden, 1665, British Museum, SL,5214.33, and Vrijheid, 1667, NMM, PAH1893.)
For the 'box' I am still looking for an explanation. But I have some ideas. Your explanation, that a box from the inside of the ship has been placed on the outside of the ship by an ignorant restorer, does not explain the hole that is inside the box. Or do you think the restorer took the trouble to make that as well?
And now, for something completely different: I remember, from a long time ago, a discussion on the German forum about the construction of the frames in the bow of the Hohenzollern-model, the construction on top of the small forward deck (luizenplecht). I remember that discussion stayed unresolved because of a missing picture of the Gent-model. Can I help in providing that missing picture of the model here? If so, could you please indicate which picture you need?
As far as I remember, it can only be a picture focussing on the beakhead bulkhead at the edge of the luizenplicht. But we already have such a pic. Maybe there is another?
My opinion is that the luizenplicht-deck reaches to the outside of the hullplanking and that that small strip is visible there below the whale. I think on the model and not on a real ship.
As for Zevenwolden, that´s a captured ship and altered by the English in their manner. Vrijheid is a southern Rotterdam ship. I talked about Northern ships. It seems, that
the Southerners were more prepared to adapt certain English practices (crosses in the hold e.g.). By the way, where are the "kogelbakken" on the upper open decks of the Gent model; the HZ has them.
Were they removed at some time?? That box may have been such a kogelback. To drill a hole is no problem for a so-called restorer of the 18th/19th century; the entire rig was removed; so much messed up.
Oh yes, there are still a lot of pictures. With these two for example you can check your theory about the protruding deck.
What do you think this says about your theory?
As for the fenders. So you neglect Witsen, writer of the 'north'? And you think Zevenwolden was drawn by Van de Velde after capture and change by the English? And you think such a very strict line can be drawn between 'southern' and 'northern' shipbuilding, that 'southern' ships can not be regarded as proof for Dutch practice? Even when Witsen describes such practice and a contemporary model shows such practice? Well, that's your choice then, mine is a different one.
As for the extra hole in the box that you suppose the 'restorer' made. Just one question: why would he? What on earth could be his motive? Please support your theory a bit more.
I hope you're not trying to convince me that because the rigging of a model has been changed, that the model has no value for further research anymore. Because that point of view would exclude almost all seventeenth century ship models, Dutch and English, for further research.